M (1931)

It starts as a monster hunt, suggesting German folktales and villagers with
torches in a Frankenstein movie. But this is the big city and the monster is
real: a child killer who leaves no clues and taunts the police with
letters. We're not told what happens to the children; they all seem to be
girls and are found in a certain "condition", phrasing that reminded me of
Jack the Ripper.

Fear washes over the city. We see it from many perspectives. Mobs are accusing
and seizing random people. The police are making a maximum effort,
concentrating on the underworld. This hampers crime so much that the syndicate
mounts their own campaign to find the killer, who they hate as much as
anyone. We have a race between the police and crooks, who are just as hard
working and efficient, to find the madman and deal with him. This is really
fine movie making.

The criminals get to him first. The story lags a bit as the police try to
figure this out and catch up. But then we move to a vivid and moving trial
before the assembled underground.

The crooks are remarkably hard-nosed about crime and punishment. Let him off
because of insanity? Absurd. Put him in prison at taxpayer's expense, maybe
let him out so he can kill again? No way. The defense counsel argues
forcefully that a man operating under uncontrollable compulsion has no free
will. The State must render him harmless but it would be immoral to punish
him. The underground will have none of it.

In the end -- we don't know the end.

Peter Lorre, bulging eyes and goblin face, is entirely believable as the
monster. We want him caught, but when he becomes the hunted this conflicts
with our impulse to root for the underdog, the fox rather than the hounds.

Watch his hysterical plea at his "trial": the crooks understand, but do not
pity.

Lang's first sound picture. Like Hitchcock, he regretted the passing of the
silent era and you can see this in many quiet compositions.

The old film stock obviously has a lot of history and has seen rough
treatment. Criterion did quite a bit of cleanup and the Blu-ray has been
praised for it's high definition image. I think a DVD would have been about as
good, but I have not seen one to compare. (I am told by reliable authorities
that I'm nuts to doubt the improvement over DVD).